Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I recommend THE STRANGE STORY OF THE QUANTUM by
Banesh Hoffmann for those of you who think science/medicine cannot advance via a path of wrong thinking.

Hmmm

"This timeless exploration of the work of the great physicists of the early 20th century employs analogies, examples, and imaginative insights rather than computations to explain the dramatic impact of quantum physics on classical theory. Topics include Pauli's exclusion principle, Schroedinger's wave equation, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and many other concepts. 1959 edition."

All of these things were still developed and eventually tested via the scientific method. More to the point they were developed to solve problems in the field of physics.

Blaming vaccines on austism is more along the lines of the thinking that gave us 'ether' for so many years. Only nowhere near as good.

"This timeless exploration of the work of the great physicists of the early 20th century employs analogies, examples, and imaginative insights rather than computations to explain the dramatic impact of quantum physics on classical theory. Topics include Pauli's exclusion principle, Schroedinger's wave equation, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and many other concepts. 1959 edition."

All of these things were still developed and eventually tested via the scientific method. More to the point they were developed to solve problems in the field of physics.

Blaming vaccines on austism is more along the lines of the thinking that gave us 'ether' for so many years. Only nowhere near as good.

Kinda.

The point was, that even though a theory seemed completely logical, the next theory disproved it completely and logically. Again and again. And that's without an obvious profit motive.

The point was, that even though a theory seemed completely logical, the next theory disproved it completely and logically. Again and again. And that's without an obvious profit motive.

Incorrect. In all cases there was a large an obvious gap or flaw in the present theory that required new ideas and theories to fill the gaps. In you case you already have theories that more than explain the issue and fit the data as well.

And again, you've already had the profit issue explained to you. So stop barking 'profit' with regards to childhood vaccines. The profits just are not there compared to other kinds of medication.

You forgot to mention the most important thing you're against: reality.

__________________"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

I'm curious why he hasn't responded to my pointing out that Wakefield patented a single dose measles vaccine........

Did you mention that this means that Wakefield stands to gain financially from any perception that the MMR vaccine is unsafe? Or does the profit motive only serve to discredit the actions of whoever Clayton Moore wants it to discredit, for some reason?

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Your inability to comprehend, not only the points of view of others, but the feasibility of anyone having a different point of view to yours, makes it rather ironic that you're posting on a thread about autism.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Your inability to comprehend, not only the points of view of others, but the feasibility of anyone having a different point of view to yours, makes it rather ironic that you're posting on a thread about autism.

Dave

Yeah, I nominated this...

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Your inability to comprehend, not only the points of view of others, but the feasibility of anyone having a different point of view to yours, makes it rather ironic that you're posting on a thread about autism.

Dave

You're the one who would put children at risk by allowing them 22 shots before the age of 2!!!

Do you think that that 22 shot sequence was ever studied?

What child would encounter those 22 diseases before the age of 2?
Or a lifetime? How many of those diseases are life threatening?

Quote:

Birth

* Hep B: Hepatitis B vaccine (HBV); recommended to give the first dose at birth, but may be given at any age for those not previously immunized.

1-2 months

* Hep B: Second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose.

* Seasonal influenza. Beginning in the 2010-2011 flu season, the seasonal influenza vaccine will protect against H1N1 flu, as well as other flu strains.

The vaccine is recommended every year for children older than 6 months. Kids under 9 who get a flu vaccine for the first time will receive it in two separate doses a month apart.

Although children 6 months to 5 years old are still considered the group of kids who need the flu vaccine the most, updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now recommend that all older kids and teens get it, too (as long as enough is available).

* Hep A: Hepatitis A vaccine; given as two shots at least 6 months apart

15-18 months

* DTaP

4-6 years

* DTaP
* MMR
* IPV
* Varicella

11-12 years

* HPV: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, given as 3 shots over 6 months. It's recommended for girls to prevent genital warts and cervical cancers. The vaccine also may be given to boys to prevent genital warts.
* Tdap: Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis booster
* MCV: Meningitis vaccine; with a booster dose at age

Please explain how any of those on your list are not solid citizens. Why is Big Pharma not a solid citizen for example?

Political influence in the U.S.

[quote]The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]

...

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text available elsewhere. Instead, just post a short quote and a link to the other source.

Do you really think decisions concerning the health of Americans should be dictated by lobbyists whose concern is profit.

So you've switched your stance from 'vaccines are evil because they cause autism' to 'vaccines are evil because a company wants to make a profit.'

While living in the idealist universe you've concocted in your head would be wonderful, we live in a capitalist society. Almost every company is motivated by profit. This is not enough reason to dismiss a product, especially one that makes essentially nothing when compared to major medications like say...Viagra. I don't even think it's possible to run a pharmaceutical company without seeking to make profits, how else are you going to fund research and development costs?

Quote:

Is there a counterbalancing patient lobby?

People dying/not dying tends to make a very strong counterbalance to pharmaceutical lobbying. And then there's you know...the FDA?

Do you really think decisions concerning the health of Americans should be dictated by lobbyists whose concern is profit. Is there a counterbalancing patient lobby?

I'm in Britain, where decisions on healthcare provision are made by NICE, a body set up to provide cost-effectiveness in the NHS; in other words, to minimise the cost of healthcare, an aim diametrically opposed to the maximising of profit to pharmaceutical companies. And yet NICE backs MMR vaccination. It's almost as if it had nothing to do with the profits of pharmaceutical companies, and was only a matter of what's the most effective way of maximising the health of the population. But that can't really be true, can it?

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

So you've switched your stance from 'vaccines are evil because they cause autism' to 'vaccines are evil because a company wants to make a profit.' Decisions concerning the health of Americans isn't dictated by lobbyists, it's dictated by experimentation.

While living in the idealist universe you've concocted in your head would be wonderful, we live in a capitalist society. Almost every company is motivated by profit. This is not enough reason to dismiss a product, especially one that makes essentially nothing when compared to major medications like say...Viagra. I don't even think it's possible to run a pharmaceutical company without seeking to make profits, how else are you going to fund research and development costs?

People dying/not dying tends to make a very strong counterbalance to pharmaceutical lobbying. And then there's you know...the FDA?

Try and focus. The reason there over a thousand lobbyists isn't because isn't because their widgit is better than the other widgit. They are telling the government what should be mandatory. They are convincing the FDA that the drugs and vaccines they sell are safe. They even convinced the government to set up a court that was/is the only place persons can take legal action against vaccine makers.

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma. I live in a small town and I can walk, less than a mile to THREE CVS drug marts and a Rite Aid. Stretch it to two miles and 2 Wallgreens and 2 or 3 others kick in.

Quote:
The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]

...

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste large tracts of text from other sources. Instead, just cite a short quote and post a link to the other source.

Posted By:LashL

Realizing of course that the Democrats get money, just not as much. They still owe Big Pharma.

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma.

Given the fact that every human being has a slightly different physiology, it's not surprising that some people have an adverse reaction to any given drug. Add to that the willingness to sue based on post hoc, propter ergo hoc reasoning in an extremely litigious society, and the lawsuits need no explanation.

There are risks to taking perscription medication. In general, the risk isn't quite as high as in crossing the street, but it is slightly more than in drinking a glass of water.

It's in the best interests of lawyers and the media to exaggerate these risks.

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Try and focus. The reason there over a thousand lobbyists isn't because isn't because their widgit is better than the other widgit. They are telling the government what should be mandatory.

And yet vaccines are not mandatory.

Quote:

They are convincing the FDA that the drugs and vaccines they sell are safe.

Actually, no. They have to go through a lot of trials and work to convince the FDA that a drug is safe. It has been argued that the FDA's requirements are so stringent that if asprin were developed today it would never make it to the market.

Quote:

They even convinced the government to set up a court that was/is the only place persons can take legal action against vaccine makers.

And the government thought it was a good idea because the lawsuit happy nature of people vs. the low profitability of vaccines would mean that the pharma companies would just drop the whole line - and then we'd have a problem.

Quote:

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma.

The FDA's testing is not perfect, and a lot of drugs may turn out to have long-term effects. Go to Europe some time and look at their drug approval standards. A few greedy lawyers and a couple of drugs that turned out to have long term side effects in a tiny fraction of the population does not mean vaccines are causing autism.

Quote:

I live in a small town and I can walk, less than a mile to THREE CVS drug marts and a Rite Aid. Stretch it to two miles and 2 Wallgreens and 2 or 3 others kick in.

This is the USA, our drug stores sell a lot of things besides prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

The reason there over a thousand lobbyists isn't because isn't because their widgit is better than the other widgit. They are telling the government what should be mandatory. They are convincing the FDA that the drugs and vaccines they sell are safe.

Vaccines aren't mandatory.

Quote:

They even convinced the government to set up a court that was/is the only place persons can take legal action against vaccine makers.

Do you actually understand why this was set up? Or are you just going to attribute it to some massive conspiracy to make all Americans autistic?

Quote:

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma.

Since every person is different, it's almost impossible not to eventually have someone who has an adverse reaction to a drug. This is why all medications have documented side effects. How many of those ambulance chasers actually win anything?

Quote:

I live in a small town and I can walk, less than a mile to THREE CVS drug marts and a Rite Aid. Stretch it to two miles and 2 Wallgreens and 2 or 3 others kick in.